Printable View
I find that the BBC does her best, but sometimes misses the victorian ball in the way that they put things in their adaptations that are not true to victorian culture...
But anyway, if you value the BBC adaptations so much, watch some French adaptations of French literature. The french also do a very good job, I would even say, a better job sometimes than the BBC.
MEMORIES...
I rented the DVD of the BBC version of the story, and have been watching it a lot. My kids (6 and 9) enjoy the story, too! The most recent time I watched it, something struck me about Jane's 4 flashbacks while she is living with her cousins. I think they are fantasy.
1. Memory: While regaining her strength after being found on the Moors, Jane remembers running back into Thornfield after the wedding is called off. Flower petals are falling out of her bouquet. She runs upstairs. Rochster runs in the house after her, and calls out to her, not knowing where she went. Reality: Rochester drags her back to meet Bertha with the others. She was in shock, absorbing the news.
2. Memory: When Jane is sitting in St. John's church, she remembers the last time she was in a church. The bible falls to the ground with the news of the other wife. Symbolic of her dream come crashing down. Reality: The minister places the bible on the ledge behind him before he follows the others up to Thornfield.
If the first two were inaccurate "I wish I had..." memories, why shouldn't the last two be, too?
3. & 4. Memory: Jane's final conversations with Rochester - her fiance no more. In memory Jane adds the kisses and caresses she was longing for on her wedding night. Her room has a warm glow of golden light that has never been present in her room at any other time in the movie. I don't think her room had a fireplace needed to cast such a warm glow. Her room usually had a cold gray light, day or night. (The first time I saw these scenes, I knew they had been filmed by a woman. High on sensuality, not sexuality.) Reality (according to the book): Jane refused all advances, as they were no longer allowed. She was willing to listen to what he had to say for hours if need be. Still wanting to be with him for a little longer, even if she could never be WITH him.
I was thinking back to when I was Jane's age (18-19 yrs) - almost 30 years ago now - and it was not uncommon for me to do the same thing. I would remember events with my boyfriend as a blend between what they were and what they might have been. For Jane, the fantasizied kiss or carress from the man she loved was the only kind she could have any more. It would hurt too much to remember the event with her rejecting his advances and the torment that caused him.
EXPECTATIONS...
I have also re-read the book, cover to cover. This time making notes in the margins - something I have not done since school! (FUN!) From the beginning, Rochester accurately predicts what Jane would do if asked to do something wrong (i.e. run off with a married man) -- she wouldn't do it. So he devises a plan to get her to do that wrong thing without her knowing it. The plan is discovered and Jane behaves EXACTLY as Rochester knows she will. Her integrity is one of the things he respects about her, whether he likes the decision or not.
I like how in this story both Jane and Mr. Rochester can read so much about each other in the other's eyes. What the eyes say is almost as important at times as their words. In thinking about their future, I wonder how that changes after they are finally married. Since there are no more secrets, is it not much of an issue? Do they get some of that communication back once he regains partial eyesight? Can you read the soul in the eyes of a blind person?
One of the things I really like about this story (book and movie) is having a male character that is so moody and expressive. It is a real treat! Toby Stephens does a wonderful job in expressing the wide range of feelings that male characters today are not even asked to express. I love watching his face - stern, relaxed, tormented, playful, anxious, happy, can-my-dream-really-be-here-in-my-arms, joy. Wonderful! Can you imagine any of the box office wonders being able to pull off this role? Not a chance!
Waw, MeWeed, like that I hadn't looked at it yet...
I think you're right. The flashbacks were want-to-be memories... However, for the average viewer that was not really clear, I found... I didn't really spend a lot of time watching it, you obviously have. If I had spent more time, I could have noticed that... Thank you for that insight.
About the eyes-thing:
I believe that he and she are much alike. They are both passionate, convinced of their own rightness (although Rochester is a little too convinced in the beginning), they say what they think is right and they are honest (the most touching part in that is Jane who says 'no' to his question 'do you think me handsome'), although Rochester still needs to get honest with himself, but like the end implies and like Jane wrote to a reader, Rochester has the seed of good nature in him.
I suppose, to each other, they are really an open book, so, when he finally becomes blind, she knows what he wants/thinks/feels/wishes/etc. without reading it in his eyes and without him telling her or without her asking him.
When she writes to her cousins to tell them that they got married and they write back that they will come and visit 'after the honeymoon', Rochester says that, if they waited until after the honeymoon, they would never come, because that the honeymoon would only end with a grave. I think that's telling all: the honeymoon is a time of bliss, utter togetherness and symbiosis (or supposed to be). And with that marriage it is reached for ever , they have really become one flesh in the sense that they know everything about each other as if they were part of each other really. They don't need eyes to read in them what they already know.
aaaaaaaaaaah:D
Kiki, you mentioned a few posts ago that people don't like the gypsy scene - they don't understand it. I really liked the scene in the book - it was really full of lots of layers of good stuff! Rochester-as-gypsy won't touch her hand to read her palm... the game would be up if he did. I think I will go back and read it again!
I have a question... what is a "byronic male"? I'm new to Victorian literature. I'm guessing it may have something to do with Lord Byron; but what, I have no idea.
I'm quite new to Victorian literature as well, so I'm not a specialist, but I'll make an attempt...
The normal name for such a (anti-)hero is 'Byronic Hero'. Indeed, it has to do with Lord Byron, as you said, but not like you think, probably... Although he was kind of Byronic himself, not only in a name, he created the first ever Byronic Hero in literature, hence the fact that that kind of character was named after him.
A Bryonic Hero is (mostly) a man who is not handsome, but has lots of charisma, larger than life, has priciples of his own that go against society, is (consequently) kind of an outcast, mysterious, is intelligent, cynical, critisises himself, is highly educated, but nonetheless doesn't take notice of rank and privilege, struggles with integrity, is moody, arrogant, sometimes self)destructive, is highly seductive, has a troubled past. Although he's a hero, he does have bad points. I got helped by Wikipedia :D.
The gypsy-scene has a lot of significance, and it goes very deep into links with Manfred and King Lear. It is a lovely prank, of course, but it is much better than that...
I watched the version of the story today with Morton and Hinds. The BBC show with Wilson and Stephens is 2 parts - 4 hours. This one is just over 1.5 hours. Wow...what a difference. So little time... so much left out!
I liked how some of the conversations were closer to the book - particularly the first few conversations between Jane and Rochester. Yet, key parts seemed left out, too. (The comment about the difference between informality and insolance, for one.) I never saw this Rochester crack a smile, as Jane describes in the book - "the rare smile he seems to save for special occasions." This Rochester is gruff from start to finish.
The whole theme of buying people (or selling their soul) for their affections was mostly left out.
Some of the missing storylines... the gypsy's visit... Mason & Jane staying silent as Rochester fetches the doctor... Coming back to the house after becoming engaged to have Mrs Fairfax see them... the conversation between Mrs F and Jane... Adele chapperoning the trip to town.... Some of the new storylines: Meeting Blanche in Milcote on the shopping spree... Having the household staff attend the wedding... Mrs Fairfax in attendance at the meeting of Bertha....
And most importantly altered: Uncle John Eyre's existance is left out... Jane introducing herself to Diana and St. John as "Jane Eyre" not "Jane Elliot"... St. John and Diana (and missing Mary) are not discovered to be family... Jane doesn't get an inheritance, thereby going back to Rochester as a peer with money... A sense of love and belonging to family is a dominant theme in the story.
In this version, Rochester acts much more like a father to Adele - much more affectionate. He also admits to being her father, which, in the book never does. Bertha lives in a padded cell, like a caged animal.
I didn't care for Rochester's rant at Jane after the wedding, when she had packed her bags, and was trying to leave Thornfield. There was no apology, which in her heart, she could accept. He acted the spoiled brat who wasn't getting his way. In the book I get the feeling that a friendship had really been growing, and at this point in the story he is desparate and aggitated-- torn between grief over the hope of a future with Jane lost, and, what is beginning for him to be true love for her, caring for her welfare. In this version of the movie, I never had any sense that Rochester was more than manipulative with Jane. I didn't see any reason she would like him, let alone fall for him. Was she so desperate for the attention of a father figure?
(A few weeks ago, I was telling one of my friends part of the story line of this book. I told her how Jane went back to her room after meeting Bertha, and spent the day alone, numb. Late in the day she noticed how no one had been up to check on her. She thought that she was now either the laughing stock of the house, or someone to be avoided by everyone else. Even Adele did not come to check on her. Jane left her room to get something to eat, not having eaten for almost 2 days, and she trips over something upon leaving her room. Mr. Rochester has been sitting there all day, in her doorway, waiting for her to come out. He catches her. My friend said, "Oh! That is SO romantic!" :blush: ) Neither the BBC nor the A&E versions did this scene right, as far as I am concerened!
Jane's quiet Quakerish ways in this movie didn't work for me. She seemed blank and distant, not thoughtful and introspective. Her vacant expression didn't match with the strong sense of self she had when she opened her mouth. I DID like the way that we got to hear Jane's thoughts, which helped to tell the story.
My favorite line was when Jane returned from her aunt's funeral: "Jane, as you are a governness, perhaps you can explain to me the concept of the 28 day week." Very funny! Why would he rant about not receiving a letter from her? Wouldn't that have been very inappropriate, as they are from different classes?! We don't hear Jane's line that "wherever [Rochester is], is her home."
I have a question about unmarried people alone..., which was discussed in the King Lear vs. Rochester thread. St. John and Jane are alone together a lot. In the book, he visits the school, and visits her home in the evening twice. In the movie, Diana goes up to bed, leaving the other two alone, when non-cousin St. John proposes to her. Does the convention of having a chapperone not apply to him since he is a minister?
I think I still prefer the BBC version and the book!
MeWeed, you're right, that version with Ciaran Hinds and Samantha Morton is very blank indeed...
But, it had one good point: the writers were very consequent in the fact that they clearly had a view: they wanted to film the love story, no more no less... They were very consequent in that and they took everything out that didn't belong to that. They left the gypsy out because it does indeed not belong to the love story as a good prank, but to Rochester himself as narcissistic figure or as King Lear. They give the fear Jane feels at the end because she sees the demon in him, another reason: violence. That's maybe a little rash, but it does work better than have him rant on about his woes when you haven't spent any time on that in the rest of the film.
Rochester was indeed very grim, and didn't smile, that's a shame, but here again, the writers had a very clear view of a very grim man, rather than the flirty version of Toby Stephens that was then too far to the other side of the spectrum... On the other side, I believe that modern versions tend to really 'modernise' Victorian ways too much. Both actors in that film had good experience in costume drama. They probably knew very well how to act as a person 100 years ago and then the lacking of flirting, passion, smiling etc etc is maybe in its place. Potentially, I think, Ciaran Hinds was the best Rochester of them all, but it's a little sad that he got the wrong script. I think they wanted to make a blank version of the story. They didn't really have a lot of ambition, and in that it did work.
For the BBC version of '83 he was too young and for that film in '96 (?) he was just right, but got the wrong script... Sad. Although he played a radio version of Jane Eyre and that's where he was picked up by the director of the film...
No, I think that that rant is to create the fear Jane feels, also before the wedding. I think she is torn between her passion and the knowledge that Rochester has a big, big bad patch on him... In a certain way, I think she knows from the beginning that he is kind of possessed, or, if you want to tone that down, she knows that there is something wrong anyway. Of course it is very difficult to put that in a film... You can evoke that with text read by the actress who plays Jane, but that's tedious for the viewer and spoils the surprise. Or you can of course very obvious, evoke that like they did with the read shawl, but that's not according to the story because Bertha was locked in a cell without a window... In the last monologue of Rochester, Jane's fears are confirmed, but how do you put that in film? It is not only the secret that has to be exposed, it's his real state of reason that needs to come to light. The fear Jane feels in the book, is realised in the 1996 version because he is violent. Although, of course, Rochester doesn't really frighten her in the same way, Jane is still scared, along with all the (women)viewers, which wouldn't have been the case if you had that monologue from the book, because you need to be very conscious of religion to realise the danger that lies there... You don't get that fear in other films because the writers probably missed it themselves... The fact that you ask the question yourself: 'How could she fall for him?' is maybe the question Jane asks herself: 'How could I fall for him, believe him?' Then for another reason, of course, but nothing is nothing, having it for the wrong reason is at least having it. It depends what you want...Quote:
Was she so desperate for the attention of a father figure?
I think there wasn't an apology because they thought, rightly, that an apology at that moment coming from Rochester is not a real one anyway. He does apologise in the book, but his apology is a false one as he still goes on about living together. That apology is kind of more blaming himself for not pulling it off then it is a real apology. So, in stead, to save themselves the time and viewers that don't understand and then see Jane as the stupid girl for leaving the 'poor man', the writers decided to make it in 5 seconds clear that Rochester is not worth it at that moment...
Concerning the Mrs Fairfax and attending the wedding:
There are several opinions as to the fact that Mrs Faifax knows that Bertha is married to Rochester. Half of the people says that she knew, being family, and the other half says she didn't and knew, like the rest of the personnel, that there was a lunatic, but not that she was Rochester's wife... In several versions, they make out that Fairfax knows, including in this one. It's only what you want to believe. I would say that she didn't, but knew about the lunatic, there is something to say about the other opinion because she seems to care about Jane's wellbeing, why? That can of course be explained by chaperoning like we have discussed, but for modern people who don't know about that it might be too difficult.
Concerning the added story lines:
Meeting Blanche Ingram on the shopping spree to Millcote, and she has with her this gastly old gentleman she doesn't like, not by far. It evokes the theme of wanting a marriage for money very well in a modern way. They didn't have much time to drag out the guest phase of the story and so they put the intentions of Ingram in the story in 5 seconds. Otherwise they'd had to pay a lot of actors, in a lot of scenes and they didn't have that money, nor the length of film. Too little time, you're right... 1.5 hours for a 600 (?) page book... That scene with Ingram in the film just sums up her character in much more economical terms... They missed an opportunity to film more lovely scenes in Rochester's house though, because Hinds and Morton had good experience but the writers chose to do it like that...
About the '28-day week'-thing:
I love that scene! He's really a little spoiled brat, like you call him before, who doesn't get what he wants!!
Did you also notice that he says: 'Even Pilot got a letter!' Jane then laughs and he asks why she laughs at the fact that she didn't notify him. She says: 'I was merely laughing at the fact that you thought that I would write Pilot a letter, sir.' (or something like it) And his face when he asks 'Jane. Will you walk with me?' Soooooooooo lovely.
That scene is also very cleverly put together. It puts the fact that Rochester is wildly in love with her into perspective, in 2 minutes max. Is it during that walk that he asks her? I think so, but I can't really remember...
Although it would be inappropriate for him to get a letter from her, maybe it can be argued that she would notify him that she was coming back, although I would think that she would rather notify the housekeeper in case he would have left in the mean time... The letter, I think, is just an excuse from the writers to make him look jealous. Just as the fact that she has learned from Mrs Fairfax that he went to London to buy a new carriage, is a cause for him to wonder what else Mrs Fairfax tells her... He feels spied upon as it were...
Indeed the scene is less romantic towards the home-bit, but then again she is about to burst her emotion at him under that tree... So probably they balanced the two outbursts and put Rochester's outburst there and Jane's a few minutes later...
Did you also notice how Rochester just looks at her when she starts to cry during the proposal? Just stands here with his arms folded. It looks cold, but it really evokes the kind of cold and calculated side of Rochester. As if he is thinking 'Yes, I did it, now she is really blind with love. I conquered her.' And then he takes her in his arms... And then the most passionate and ugly kiss in film history follows. Very effective and passionate indeed. Shows you just how ugly passion can be... (now, would that have been a plan of the writers too, then?).
Concerning the chaperoning:
I am not a specialist but I'll try to reason...
I suppose a minister knows the limits, but on the other hand is still considered as a man. Of course, he has business with her, as she is the teacher of the village school, so he does have his reasons to be there... People can't really accuse him of coming there to 'have fun' with her, let's say. Whereas a man like Rochester doesn't have any business with his governess every evening, let's say... You clearly see the difference. Although Rochester does not need a chapperone for Jane, because she is his servant and he can ask for her when he wants and how long he wants, because he can claim she serves him...
When St John proposes, I thought that they already knew they were cousins?
But if that is not the case, I think that for the working classes principles were not so strict. Honour and reputation was not as important as for courting in high society. But still, Jane didn't have to receive him during nights and nights on end in her own cottage, because people would have started gossipping... Probably the facts that he was a minister and the fact that they were in fact working class combined, makes probably the ground for not chaperoning Jane and St John.
Or maybe Diana felt from her brother that he wanted to propose? Naturally she would leave them alone...
In was not so that unmarried people were never alone with each other... You had to give them a chance to have private conversation, but on the other hand, not too long... Half an hour was probably unforgivable. Probably the older a woman you were the more the time increased, because then you were not that naive anymore... (I would imagine) Old mades for example were unmarried but still would probably be allowed to spend time among men alone. No-one would think anything bad of it, unless it was the same man for half a day on end, of course... For that you don't even have to be a Victorian to start imagining things ;). Old mades were girls/women from about 25, round about. So even Ingram could have been an 'old made'...
Concerning the whole film with Hinds and Morton:
I agree that a lot was left out, and it was very bleak. But it had really the one good point that it evoked some of the themes very well, in another way than the book, but still got the point across. Their biggest aim was the love story, and they attained that aim. They didn't wish for anything more. They would better haven given the film a sub-title to make clear that it was not intended as the whole story...
I firmly believe that the two actors that were casted for the lead roles were the best they could have found for their parts. It is not easy to find an experienced 19 year-old who can put down such a believable Victorian Jane. She looked naive enough and plain enough. I think, nowadays, it is very difficult to find a woman of that age that is still naive or can act it that way... Or, on the other hand, a woman of that age that can act such a deep historic character...
On Hinds:
I believe he acted a man of the age. It was not his first film like that, not even his first Rochester. He didn't seem strangled by his 'cravatte' (neck-cloth?), didn't seem bothered by his (crotch-revealing) trousers. He just had something over him like 'I wear these clothes every day'. Didn't walk with his legs open (which is one thing apparently modern men tend to do and which is extremely upsetting in costume dramas!). His looks were also ugly enough. Nothing against him, actually the man is not at all as ugly like he was there, actually rather normal looking, even on the handsome side, certainly on the charming one, but they made him look the part: grim enough with his dark hair and beard, and the beard gave him something sinistre... The fact that he sang that song and also spoke that sentence in (admirable) French ('Ah/Attention, mon pied!', 'oh/be careful, my foot!') was another thing that the other Rochesters didn't have. At least they don't make him do that in other versions, whereas that is something that really makes Rochester attractive to Jane, I think. It's a shame that they didn't play his French out. They had the chance there as Hinds has a French girlfriend and daughter with her and so speaks French with a perfect accent like Rochester is described in the book. He could also sing, haleluja! Beautifully too, as it happens. They did play that out in one scene, like in the book...
That film with Morton and Hinds they filmed in 5 weeks only and the first scene they filmed was the proposal and they didn't take a lot of time rehearsing. Considering that, I think Hinds and Morton, the director and the crew made a bloody good film!
In the new BBC version I found Jane not naive and not plain enough. I think Jane should be something like a grey mouse: nobody needs to notice her, like Ingram doesn't see her sitting in the window seat when she bends over, eager to see Rochester come back just before the gypsy arrives... She only sees her after a while when she has already bent over to the same window as Jane is sitting in... Jane needs to be unnoticable and naive to the point where she has never seen another man than Brocklehurst, and no other place than, very briefly, Gateshead and Lowood... Ruth Wilson was too self-conscious. Jane needs to be self-conscious and needs to have her own ideas but shouldn't believe it's normal, as aunt Reed and Brocklehurst made her believe...
Toby Stephens I didn't like because he was too grim, to the point of rudeness. Rochester wasn't rude, he was moody and used to servants and so giving orders. He had no experience with governesses that were to be treated differently than a Leah or a Sophie. It is not to be forgotten that Rochester has been well rased as a gentleman, I can't see that in the first scenes of Rochester in the BBC version. His hair was also too wild. There was no way that your hair would have stood up like that in Victorian times. The time of the French revolution was long gone... That was the time of wild hair in France, but then in England there was more order so the wild hair probably never came into fashion. He was dressed much too dark (that was obviously not his choice of course). A Victorian gentleman was dressed in a black or dark long jacket and trousers (not always in the same colour) and there was some colour in his garments as to the waistcoat and the neck-cloth. Toby Stephens was just black, black and more black!?!?
They did a lot of interpreting in the latest BBC version, but not always to the good side... They left a good part of the real Victorian ways out of it (when the ask Jane what she thinks of education, or something, in front of the guests... What was that about???), including cloting, customs...
We have now established the thing with the bed room scene, so they are pardoned for that.
I think Jane Eyre is extremely difficult to adapt to film because it is so deep and because it is told from one point of view. You need to include certain pieces with text read by Jane to be able to make people understand...
Probably the best way to really see the book in action, without symbolic scenes, added scenes, scenes taken away or changed (not too many) and a lot of Victorian principles and attention to clothing as well (!) is the 1982/3 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke in the lead roles. Admittedly, like it says here in some posts, it is a little theatrical at times, certainly from Dalton's side and also a little difficult coming to life in some parts (like a car driving without gears) but it does stay true to the book and it's a good thing to really see the story in action and also to see certain tones of voice, certain things that happen in the book but that you didn't really see because they were described rather than acted out.
I've added the 1982 Dalton version of the movie to the top of my DVD rental list. I'm glad to see that it is 2 discs--330 minutes -- 5.5 hours. That should really help get the story right!
Kiki, you said that the Hinds version trimmed a lot out, to keep it to just one story line. Perhaps. But for me, they trimmed too much. I never would have guessed that this movie was a love story, Victorian or otherwise. Maybe I need to watch it a second time, with that in mind.
My children (6 and 9) like the Harry Potter stories--books and movies. Those movies leave half the book out, too, creating a similar yet very different story. We have come to expect that the movie won't be the book. We now vow not to reread the book before the next new movie. Last time, we did. During the whole movie our reactions were "they left this out... that whole storyline is missing... etc." Perhaps the same is true of any attempt to film a book.
I appreciate your thoughts. :)
It depends what you are: a purist or not a purist...
But like you say, maybe we just get aggravated because we have actually read it... And we start to miss things that others don't even see...
It is a shame for the two actors that they got such a bad script... They could hve gone into history as the best Rochester and Jane. But that's life, I suppose.
I didn't like that version either until I started to think about it. Watch it again, and think about it... If you haven't given up yet.
In the 1982 version with Dalton and Clarke you can actually follow with the book next to you, it's so alike! Enjoy it.
I also appreciate talking to you!
I was watching Eating with the enemy on BBC the other day and this person came on the screen... Restaurant critic and member of the jury for the amateur cooks on the programme...
If he were an actor, oh my God! They would have found their true Rochester: ugly, dark, arrogant or at least sometimes and oosing sex appeal. A-ma-zing.
When he came on the screen I was just blown away and instntly thought of Jane Eyre.
Shame about his profession.
The name of the man is Jay Rayner, writes for The Observer.
Lets imagine that we go into a gallery and are captivated by a painting. We inch closer to examine the figures, to intensify the pleasure we fell. We're astonished at the skill of the painter, how lifelike the figures are, how intense an emotion they convey. We study the brushwork, the hues of color, the contrast of adjacent shapes. The more we look the more we wish to grasp the secret of the artist.
Not satisfied with our eyes, we use a magnifying glass to study the figures. What we see are individual specks of paint frozen in space, in time. The movement, the emotion of the figures are lost.
I'm using a painting as an analogy to the novel. The author defines the characters, the scene, the theme within the text as the painter the figures on the canvas. They are fixed in time, in place, in the pages, the phrases, the words, of the author. If she is very good we feel the transference of emotion, the character come to life. And here in my view lies the danger when we attempt to extend the limits that the author fixed in the text. When Pygmalion like we attempt to expand the attributes of the characters, we overlay our own values on them. Sometimes cultural but more likely religious or moral.
Thus when we bring the character to life, paradoxically we bring him or her to death. By defining goodness or evil beyond the fixed attributes of the author, we take it on ourselves to reward or punish. And the ultimate punishment for social transgression is death.
Film Adaptation
The 18th. And 19th. centuries did not have to deal with visual translation of the text. Not that distortion of the author's intent was absent. Subliminal denotations and connotations of words by readers did the job, so that two people comparing the experience of reading more often than not were talking past each other. Yet subjective interpretation is very different from visualization by an actor. To some extend the read character is still limited by the text. The authors character, interpreted by the actor has a persona that does not end with the spoken line or facial gesture. He/she does not have to be brought to life. The actor has a past and a future and the attributes of beauty (sex appeal in contemporary usage) or fame from previous roles, underlays the portrayal. Now a director, if she is sensitive to the authors intent, can use these physical attributes to highten, to extend, the characterization. Not to mention music and scenery that draws us into the story. Conversely the same attributes, misused can damped or even distort to the point of unrecognizable, the authors vision. Therefore the visual translation of a novel can not, need not and in the best case, is never textual.
For example in Susanna White's Jane Eyre whole sections of text that moved the story line from one location to another are left out but the result is not a loss but rather the tightening of the emotional narrative.
Character Reinterpretation
The most obnoxious extensions/reinterpretations of characters from historical fiction seem to be by modern writers who from sociological or religious perspectives attempt to 'fix problems' in famous novels. In visualization Austen seems to have suffered the most, in novel, Bronte. I'll close the subject with kiki1982, 08-10-2008 posting - “I wholeheartedly disagree with the fact Jean Rhys' provided an intriguing twist on the relationship between Berthe and Rochester... Wide Sargasso Sea is a fictional work (if 'work' it can be named) “. She is much more polite that I can be.
Kiki1982 and MeWeed: I hope you're checking back for comments on this thread. I skimmed through your reviews of various film versions and noticed that you don't mention the version of 1973 with Sorcha Cusack and Michael Jayston. If you go to IMDB.com for opinions you'll find very enthusiastic feedback. The DVD is available from amazon.de in the original English. Not cheap but worth every Euro cent. Enjoy!!!!!
I too have tried to find out which is the song that Adele sings during the Caribbean scenes in the 2007 BBC adaptation of Jane Eyre. Despite my efforts I've never been able to discover what it is, and there was no soundtrack released for this production. I do not even know if it was an existing song or written for the production.
Any information would be greatly appreciated.
I agree with this assessment. I purchased the A&E version and I like it very much. I think the other great version is the Timothy Dalton one. That is set more like a stage play and very intense. You can view scenes from it on Youtube - lots of Dalton fans over there. I wasn't aware that Elizabeth Taylor every played Jane. She just never struck me as the plain Jane type. That is quite interesting to find out. I can't imagine that old film at all. I will have to do some research. The William Hurt version was not bad but totally abreivated and a little on the modernized side, indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by sciencefan
Stick with the first 2 and I think you all will enjoy them very much.
I watched it, despite some of its faults. The cast were fantastic, and the BBC did not disappoint me too much with this adaptation. The finishing somewhat dismayed me. I'm currently assigned an essay for my AS English Literature course on Jane Eyre, which I'm finding very interesting and joyful to complete.
@Fleederhus:
I haven't been able to watch that adaptaton on YouTube yet. I regularly check whether there are any new ones, but if it is as good as the 70s adaptation of Emma, then at least it scratches the profound surface of this work.
About the adaptation with William Hurt. I didn't know it was Miramax, but now everything starts to make sense! They did the same romantic sugary stuff to Emma. Would it be any coincidence that they are a daughter company of Walt Disney?
Anyway: Zefirelli did his best to make a profound poetic adaptation, but I think he decided to make the actors too passionless. In French this works very well. The more passionless, the better. The more silence, the better. But in English... I have never seen a more disinterested Rochester, almost. Up to the point that it makes you laugh. I mean, come on! If you read how happy he is when Jane returns and if you look at Ciaran Hinds doing it, please, you'd swear William Hurt's Rochester could not care less. Or that scene when he falls off his horse. He swears for God's sake (in the novel). Where is the fire, where is Rochester in fact??!
What I did find very good, and no version has topped that, is the interpretation of light and dark in it. If they get Rochester right, it's a triumph, let alone any seriously thought through interpretation. Zefirelli had it, but then ruined it with French-style acting. I thought Charlotte Gainsbourg was a bad actress until I saw her (in French) in Les Misérables of 2000. I realised then that it was the silent, passionless style embedded in French acting that did not suit English plots, and certainly not Jane Eyre where sometimes the passion spits off the page/screen.
To me, made abstraction of the 1973 version which I have not seen, I agree with Sciencefan: A&E was definitely the best. Orson Welles was a frightning Dracula-like monster who you swear was going to bite Jane when he was proposing and he acted as if he was continually drugged or so. Although that version was the only one who made Bertha both locked up in a dark whole and really raving mad. No extanuating circumstances there for Rochester. William Hurt was disinterested and there did not seem to be any communication between him and Jane. Timothy Dalton did very well depicting the Victorian gentleman, but failed in the sense that his voice is much too theatrical and dramatic. That works for a James Bond (very well *swoon*), for a time lord in Doctor Who, but it does not work with 'What love have I for Miss Ingram? None! And that you know!' You were really not touched by that. On top of that Jane was in fact a 30-year-old who needed to seem half her age. The actress did her best, but just looked too old to the point where you went haha at that phrase of his 'Fairfax Rochester's girl bride'. A&E could have made the definitive Jane Eyre-adaptation, had it not been for the fact that they did not afford enough time and so had to shorten the thing severely. Nonetheless, they did manage to capture the characters very well and that in such short time. Sometimes one sentence tells almost a whole chapter. Very clever and the best casting! That I admire. And down to Rochester: Ciaran Hinds confessed never to have read the novel (Morton did), so if his depiction was good (which it was very much, true to the original and not the fantasy of a few), credit to the writer. It is the most ugly kiss in film history under that tree, but a kiss of pure passion. And when Jane returns! Unbelievable. Only 5 weeks of filming.
The latest one I personally did not like. It was not intelligent enough and to me did not capture even the surface of it. Jane too self-secure for a girl who has never seen anything apart from the four walls of her school and walking distance from there. Rochester too cute and soft. St John scary, adn his two sisters too much girly to be governesses in the big town. Adèle was too old and not French enough. Again, A&E captured the childmuch better. Though Welch did even worse with Emma. I have the impression that the BBC thinks its public is stupid or so...